Correction to Commons Written Answer

Lord Henley: My honourable friend the Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries (Richard Benyon) has today made the following Statement.
	I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the Answer I gave to Parliamentary Question 7334 on 26 July 2010, Official Report, column 703W-704W, about information and communication technology spend since 1997. The response neither fully answered the Question nor contained accurate data. A corrected Answer is provided below.
	Graham Evans (Weaver Vale): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how much (a) her Department and its predecessors and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on information and communication technology in each year since 1997.
	Richard Benyon
	In response to the amount spent on information and communication technology since 1997, the Department was not formed until 2001 and data between then and April 2007 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
	
		
			  07/08 08/09 09/10 
			 Core DEFRA 126.8 99.9 113.5 
			 Rest of DEFRA 265.8 269.0 284.9 
			  392.6 368.9 398.4 
		
	
	Breakdown for the rest of DEFRA
	
		
			  07/08 08/09 09/10 
			 Animal Health 27.6 35.2 29.5 
			 Environment Agency 84.0 88.0 115.5 
			 Kew 1.9 2.0 4.0 
			 Natural England 46.7 35.5 32.3 
			 Rural Payments Agency 91.0 93.7 88.5 
			 British Waterways 7.0 7.2 6.6 
			 FERA 1.3 1.4 2.5 
			 CEFAS 1.2 1.4 1.3 
			 VLA 3.2 2.6 2.7 
			 Smaller Units (estimate) 2.0 2.0 2.0 
			 Total 265.8 269.0 284.9 
			 * The information is not held in full for smaller bodies, and this can only be assembled at disproportionate cost. Estimates have therefore been used based on partial data.

Armed Forces: Aggregated Service

Lord Astor of Hever: My honourable friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans (Andrew Robathan) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to be able to announce to the House details of changes to eligibility for the award of campaign medals to personnel serving in Afghanistan and Iraq that have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen following recommendations by the military Chiefs of Staff. These amendments will be backdated to the start of both operations and will ensure that personnel who have served on both operations receive the recognition that they deserve.
	The current eligibility criteria for the Operational Service Medal (Afghanistan) and the Iraq Medal require personnel to have served within the qualifying area for 30 continuous days. As a result, groups of Service personnel who hitherto fulfilled their duty obligations during difficult and sometimes dangerous tours of duty but who did not meet the 30 days continuous service requirement were excluded from qualification for a medal. Examples of such groups include, but are not exclusively limited to, the Aeromedical Evacuation Teams who have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq and who accompany injured patients back to the UK. Similarly, personnel based at the Kuwait Support Facility who conducted convoys into Iraq but who did not accumulate 30 continuous days service in Iraq have not qualified for the Iraq Medal.
	Personnel who deploy to or from the operational theatre for short periods to complete specific operational tasks, and subsequently return on one or more occasions, will now be allowed to accrue aggregate qualifying service in the defined medal earning area. The qualifying period for aggregate service will be 45 days which is longer than that required for continuous service in recognition of the intermittent rather than continuous exposure to risk and rigour. The eligibility criteria will distinguish between those on operational duty and visitors who will continue to be ineligible for medals on an aggregate basis.
	Personnel who are evacuated from the operational theatre as a result of either death or wounding are awarded the appropriate campaign medal no matter how long they have served there and this will not change.
	The inclusion of aggregate service will be retrospective to the start of both operations in Afghanistan (11 September 2001) and Iraq (20 January 2003). Individuals who believe that they meet the new criteria are invited to apply for the OSM (Afghanistan) or Iraq Medal directly to the MoD Medal Office. Information will be promulgated internally to each Service and externally (for those who have now left the Armed Forces) via Service and ex-Service organisations.

Education: Pupil Place Planning

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My right honourable friend the Minister for Education (Michael Gove) has today made the following Statement.
	Today I am announcing the first 16 Free School proposals to progress to the next stage of the process and develop a full business case and plan.
	We need to reform our education system if we are to accelerate improvement to keep pace with the highest performing systems of the world and ensure that every pupil growing up in this country gets a better chance of achieving their potential. Free Schools form an integral part of the Government's education policy to improve choice for parents and raise standards for all young people.
	The proposals I have agreed to move forward to business case and plan stage today represent a diverse mix: there are parent-led, community-led, sponsor-led and teacher-led proposals; there are faith and non-faith proposals; there are proposals for large secondary schools and for small primary schools. All of these proposals have been driven by demand from local people for improved choice for their young people and I am delighted that so many promising proposals have come forward at such an early stage.
	I hope that many of the projects progressing today will become the first Free Schools in September 2011. This is a challenging timescale, and some groups may decide that it is preferable to open at a later date for practical reasons. To support groups in meeting the robust requirements of the business case and plan stage, we will now be providing the proposers that progress to this stage with support co-ordinated by a named contact within my department. At the next stage, proposers will need to make a fully detailed business case for the new school and set out their plans for opening and operating the proposed school. I will make an assessment based on this final business case on whether to allow a new school to be set up.
	The proposals announced today are just the start of our Free Schools programme. My department has received a number of promising proposals for 2012 and 2013 and we will be making further announcements about taking these forward in due course. New proposals are frequently being submitted to the department. We want it to be open to a diverse range of groups to come forward with proposals which meet the needs of their local area, and for proposals to progress at the pace which is right for both proposers and for parents and young people in the local area.
	The 16 proposals approved to go forward to business case and plan stage are (in alphabetical order):
	Bedford and Kempston Free School, Bedford Borough The Childcare Company, Slough Discovery New School, West Sussex The Free School Norwich, Norfolk Haringey Jewish Primary School, Haringey I-Foundation Primary School, Leicester King's Science Academy, Bradford Mill Hill Jewish Primary School, Barnet Nishkam Education Trust, Birmingham North Westminster Free School (ARK), Westminster Priors Marston and Priors Hardwick School, Warwickshire Rivendale Free School, Hammersmith and Fulham St. Luke's School, Camden Stour Valley Community School, Suffolk West London Free School, Ealing or Hammersmith and Fulham Wormholt North Hammersmith Free School (ARK), Hammersmith and Fulham (to be known as Burlington Primary Academy)
	I will update the House as these projects progress further.

National Insurance

Lord Sassoon: My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (David Gauke) has today made the following Statement.
	The Government are determined that all parts of the UK benefit from sustainable economic growth, and that the private sector recovery is particularly strong in areas that are currently overly dependent on the public sector.
	To help deliver this, on the 22 June 2010 the Chancellor announced the launch of a Regional Employer National Insurance Contributions Holiday for New Businesses (the Holiday). The Holiday comes into operation today, and will last until 5 September 2013. The Holiday reduces employment costs for qualifying new businesses set up from 22 June 2010 outside Greater London, the South East and East of England. In doing so, it will directly provide an incentive to encourage enterprise and business growth.
	On 27 August, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs published a Technical Note that included an overview of the scheme, draft clauses and draft Explanatory Notes. This was in order to provide as much certainty and clarity as possible to employers in qualifying businesses so that they are able to take advantage of the Holiday from today.
	Copies of the Technical Note have been placed in the Libraries of the House, and the Vote Office and are also available on the HMRC website: http://www.hmrc. gov.uk/news/august.htm.
	The draft clauses will be included in the forthcoming National Insurance Contributions Bill that will be introduced in the autumn.

Sewers and Drains

Lord Henley: My right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture and Food (James Paice) has today made the following Statement.
	I am pleased to announce that on 26 August 2010 I published for consultation draft regulations to effect the transfer of private sewers into the ownership of the statutory sewerage companies in England from 2011. The consultation paper sets out the Government's intentions and provides an opportunity for interested parties to respond with their views on the accompanying draft regulations. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
	The decision to transfer follows an extensive review of the arrangements for private sewers and laterals in England and Wales. Existing private sewers and lateral drains (that part of the drain that extends beyond the property boundary) are currently the responsibility of the owners of the properties they serve. This fact typically comes as a surprise to owners, who usually assume that the sewer and lateral drain serving their property are the responsibility of the local sewerage company or local authority.
	Private sewers serve more than one property so ownership is shared and usually a large extent of the sewer will lie outside a property's own boundary. Lateral drains serve one property but always lie outside the property's boundary. Transfer provides the only comprehensive solution to a range of private sewer and lateral drain problems affecting householders. These include a lack of awareness of owners' responsibilities and unwillingness or inability to co-ordinate or contribute to potentially high costs of maintenance and repair. It will bring simplification and clarity to owners, local authorities and sewerage companies, all of whom typically become involved when these problems arise.
	Transfer will also significantly help address a lack of integrated management of the sewerage network as a whole, and provide much greater efficiency of effort, environmental stewardship and expenditure at a time when climate change impacts and housing growth may impose greater demands on urban drainage systems. Having a much greater proportion of the sewer network in the management of the water and sewerage companies means they will be able to plan maintenance and resolve problems more easily and comprehensively. The Government are also taking steps to stem the proliferation of newly built private sewers in order to prevent the recurrence of existing problems in the future.
	Subject to approval of the regulations, transfer will take place from October 2011 in order to allow the water industry and those businesses operating around it sufficient time to prepare for transfer. The costs of necessary future improvement and maintenance will, post transfer, be met by an increase in the sewerage element of bills for the generality of customers. Although these costs cannot be stated now with certainty, Ofwat estimates indicative increases of around £3 to £14 per annum across the water and sewerage companies in England.

Airports: Heathrow

Earl Attlee: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport (Theresa Villiers) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In January 2009, the previous Government announced their decisions relating to the future of Heathrow Airport. In addition to supporting the construction of a third runway, a number of additional decisions were taken relating to operations at the airport.
	This Government have already made their position clear in rejecting the case for a third runway, and opposing new runways at London's other main airports-Gatwick and Stansted. I now wish to outline the Government's position in relation to those additional operational decisions.
	I can confirm that we remain firmly committed to retaining runway alternation and will not approve the introduction of mixed-mode operations at Heathrow. This Government believe that any potential benefits mixed mode might bring to the airport are outweighed by the negative impact such operations would have on local communities.
	Operating procedures known as westerly preference, early morning runway alternation and night-time rotation of easterly-westerly preference have also all brought noise mitigation benefits to local communities. This Government do not intend to revisit previous decisions taken in relation to these procedures and they will continue to operate as they do now.
	The previous Government's decisions in 2009 also included a commitment to end the Cranford agreement. This decision was based on the desire to distribute noise more fairly around the airport and extend the benefits of runway alternation to communities under the flight paths during periods of easterly winds. We support that objective and do not intend to reopen the decision. A number of infrastructure and operational changes by BAA and NATS are needed to implement this decision. The airport operator, BAA, is currently developing proposals for ending the Cranford agreement with a view to confirming the necessary works by the end of this year. I will look to BAA to ensure that proper consideration is given to appropriate mitigation and compensation measures for those likely to be affected by the proposals.

Armed Forces: Allied Rapid Reaction Corps

Lord Astor of Hever: My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Secretary of State for Defence has endorsed the deployment of elements of NATO's Headquarters Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (HQ ARRC) to Afghanistan from January 2011 to January 2012.
	HQ ARRC is one of NATO's nine Graduated Readiness Forces (Land) (GRF(L)), standing headquarters which provide augmentation, on a rotational basis, to the ISAF Joint Command in Kabul. HQ ARRC's personnel will take on the augmentation role from elements of the French-led GRF(L) which are currently deployed and will be replaced in turn by staff from the Eurocorps GRF(L) and the Spanish GRF(L).
	HQ ARRC is a UK-led multinational headquarters staffed by personnel from 15 allied nations. In the order of 250 headquarters' staff will deploy at any one time, of which up to 189 will be UK. As a NATO deployment of NATO-assigned personnel, the UK contribution will not be considered as part of the UK's established and enduring force level, which remains at 9,500.
	The deployment of elements of HQ ARRC will ensure the operational effectiveness of the ISAF Joint Command throughout 2011 and demonstrates the UK's continued commitment both to NATO and to the international mission in Afghanistan.

Armed Forces: Defence Fixed Telecommunications Services

Lord Astor of Hever: My honourable friend the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology (Peter Luff) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I wish to inform the House that my department has recently extended our public/private partnership contract with BT Group to provide the Defence Fixed Telecommunications Services (DFTS). DFTS provides secure and survivable wide area network voice, data and video telecommunications services to defence users in the UK and abroad, and also to defence and industry partners including the National Air Traffic Systems and the Met Office. The services provided under the contract are vital to the daily operation of the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces, both in peace and at war.
	The current contract, which expires in July 2012, has been extended for three years until 2015 under existing contractual provisions. The extension is valued at about £810 million. It is expected to achieve net operational and financial benefits in excess of £90 million and, through taking full advantage of BT's 21st-century network programme, will lead to improvements in performance and security which would otherwise be unachievable. A number of impending obsolescence issues will also be resolved.
	Work is under way to recompete the contract before this extension comes to an end in 2015. This will form part of a major overhaul in the way the MoD procures and manages voice, data, video and information and communication technology services, and will reflect the outcomes of the strategic defence and security review.

Autism

Earl Howe: My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Paul Burstow) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	A national public consultation on statutory guidance for health and social care bodies to support the delivery of Rewarding and Fulfilling Lives: The Strategy for Adults with Autism in England (2010),under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 was launched on 29 July 2010. A copy has been placed in the Library and copies are available to honourable Members in the Vote Office.
	The landmark Autism Act 2009 (introduced as a Private Member's Bill by the now Secretary of State for Wales) marks a milestone in the drive to transform support and services for adults with autism in England. This Government have already made clear the commitment to drive forward work to tackle the disadvantage which people with autism and their families sadly so often face and to deliver the autism strategy published earlier this year by the previous government.
	This consultation on draft guidance for health and social services bodies to support the implementation of the autism strategy is a marker of that commitment. The draft guidance focuses on the seven areas highlighted in the Autism Act 2009 and is focused on achieving two key outcomes: improving the way health and social care services identify the needs of adults with autism; and ensuring identified needs are met more effectively to improve the health and well-being of adults with autism and their families.
	Throughout, the draft guidance underlines the importance of using existing processes and resources to achieve these outcomes.
	The aims of the consultation are to: hear the views of service commissioners and providers, people with autism and family carers and use those views to inform the development of the statutory guidance; further understand the expectations of adults with autism and their family carers in relation to health and social care services; seek views on the issues around the provision of health and social care services for adults with autism; and gather more information about health and care services currently provided for adults with autism and family carers.
	The consultation will run to 18 October 2010, and we will publish final guidance, informed by the responses we receive, in December.
	This consultation on statutory guidance for health and social care bodies is part of an ongoing programme of activity to ensure adults with autism will be able to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as the rest of society. This Government are committed to supporting people with autism to live independently as equal and included citizens. This means ensuring that programmes across the voluntary and public sectors that are aimed at improving care and transforming services address the needs of people with autism; and that mainstream public services especially become more inclusive of people with autism.

Charities: Land Disposal

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Nick Hurd) has made the following Statement.
	I have today published the Government's response to the consultation Making it Easier for Charities to Sell and Make Other Disposals of Land. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House and on the Cabinet Office website at: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk.

Equality Act 2010

Baroness Neville-Jones: My right honourable friend the Home Secretary (Theresa May) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Equality Act 2010 includes an integrated public sector equality duty. This will replace the existing race, disability and gender equality duties and is extended to cover age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity and gender reassignment in full.
	Schedule 19 to the Act lists certain bodies which will be subject to the duty. The Act contains a power allowing a Minister of the Crown to add bodies to this list and it also contains a power for a Minister of the Crown to impose specific duties on listed public bodies to help them in better performance of the duty.
	On 19 August 2010 the Government published a consultation document setting out draft regulations for the new specific duties and proposing which bodies should be added to Schedule 19 and subject to the specific duties.
	The consultation period will run until 10 November 2010.
	I am placing copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available on the Government Equalities Office website-www.equalities.gov.uk

EU: Competitiveness Council

Lord Davies of Abersoch: My honourable friend the Minister for Business and Regulatory Reform (Ian Lucas) has today made the following Statement
	The EU Competitiveness Council will take place in Brussels on 1-2 March and this Statement covers the business to be taken at the Council. I shall represent the UK on internal market and industry issues on 1 March and Andy Lebrecht, the UK's Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, will represent the UK on research issues on 2 March.
	The main industry and internal market items on the agenda are Council conclusions on future EU industrial policy; discussion of the Commission's Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs; a Council resolution on EU intellectual property rights policy; and a ministerial lunchtime discussion with Mario Monti to discuss his preliminary report on the relaunch of the EU single market.
	The main research items on the agenda are a joint Baltic Sea research and development programme; a Regulation on the European Earth Observation Programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011-13); a Council Resolution on the governance of the European research area, including a new mandate for the Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST); Council conclusions on the European Research Council and on researcher mobility and careers issues; and discussion of the Commission's Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs.
	The "any other business" (AoB) items are set out below:
	AoB items
	Information from the Commission on the results of the Copenhagen conference implications for European industryInformation from the presidency on the results of the informal Competitiveness Council on 8 and 9 February (San Sebastián)Information from the presidency and the Commission on standardisation activities, within and outside the EU, relating to electric vehiclesPossible information from the Commission on internal market scoreboard No. 20Presentation by the Commission on Functioning of the Internal Market: Implementation of the "Internal Market Information System"Information from the Commission-Services Directive -state of play of transposition information from the Commission -ITERCommunication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Mobilising private and public investment for recovery and long term structural change: developing Public Private PartnershipsInformation from the Commission 16586/09 COMPET 496 ECOFIN 836 IND 173 MI 447 RECH 434 TRANS 469 ENER 411 ENV 836Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A public-private partnership on the Future InternetInformation from the Commission15279/09 TELECOM 227 RECH 372 IND 144 ENER 359 ENV 747 SAN 291 TRANS 432Communication from the Commission - European Institute of Innovation and Technology: update on progressInformation from the presidency - High-level event on information and communication technologies for energy efficiency (ICT4EE) towards a sustainable society (Brussels 23 and 24 February 2010).
	The Government's main aims will be:
	to outline UK priorities for a new EU industrial policy, particularly the importance of open and competitive markets;to support the Council resolution on enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the EU internal market; in discussions on the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, to emphasise the UK priorities set out in the Prime Minister's EU compact for jobs and growth.;to agree a decision on the participation by the Community in a joint Baltic Sea research and development programme being undertaken by several member states and a regulation on the European Earth Observation Programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011-13);to adopt a Council resolution on the governance of the European research area, including a new mandate for the Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST) which will strengthen that body's strategic role in the definition of European research policy;and to adopt Council conclusions in response to the recent evaluation of the mechanisms and structures of the European Research Council and Council conclusions on researcher mobility and careers issues.

European Union: Foreign Policy Meetings

Lord Howell of Guildford: My honourable friend the Minister for Europe (David Lidington) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	There will be a series of EU foreign policy meetings in September.
	10-11 September: Informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers "Gymnich". My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will attend.
	10 September: Foreign Affairs Council (FAC). The Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs (Edward Davey) will attend. The Department for Business Innovation and Skills will table a Written Ministerial Statement on this prior to the FAC.
	13 September: General Affairs Council (GAC). I will represent the UK.
	16 September: European Council: My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will attend.
	Gymnich: 10-11 September. The Gymnich will be co-chaired by Baroness Ashton and the Belgian Foreign Minister Vanackere. The main item will be the EU's relations with strategic partners, in preparation for the European Council. The meeting will also discuss Pakistan, Turkey and the workings of foreign affairs councils. There will also be a meeting with EU candidate countries. Other topical issues-Middle East Peace Process and Western Balkans-may be discussed. But, because it is an informal meeting, there will be no conclusions.
	General Affairs Council (GAC): 13 September. The GAC, chaired by the Belgian presidency, will predominantly cover final preparations for the September European Council which will discuss EU relations with strategic powers and include a heads lunch discussion on Economic Governance.
	President Van Rompuy will join Ministers over lunch where we will stress the importance for having substantive foreign policy outcomes at the September European Council. The GAC will also take a first look at the October European Council which will review President Van Rompuy's economic governance task force, prepare for the Cancun meeting on climate change and November's G20 meeting in South Korea.
	European Council: 16 September. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will report to the House following the meeting of the Council.

European Union: Legislation

Lord Howell of Guildford: My honourable friend the Minister of State (David Lidington)has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	There has been a profound disconnection between the will of the British people and the decisions taken in their name by the British Government in respect of the European Union. This Government are determined to reconnect with the British people by making themselves more accountable for the decisions they take in relation to how the EU develops. We plan to decentralise the power from the Government to the British people, so the people can make the big decisions on the direction of the EU. This Government are committed to allowing the British people to have their say on any future proposals to transfer powers from Britain to Brussels.
	Her Majesty's gracious Speech set out that the Government will bring forward a Bill later in this Session which would ensure that in future this Parliament and the British people have their say on any proposed transfer of powers to the European Union. I want to update the House at this stage on the progress made so far in preparing this legislation.
	The Government will introduce a Bill which would require that:
	any proposed future EU treaty, agreed by all EU member state Governments, including the UK Government, who sought to transfer areas of power or competence from the United Kingdom to the European Union, would be subject to a referendum of the British people; and,the use of ratchet clauses or passerelles, provisions in the existing EU treaties, which allow the rules of the EU to be modified or expand without the need for a formal treaty change, would require an Act of Parliament before the Government could agree to its use.
	In addition, I set out in my Statement to the House of 6 July that the forthcoming Bill would also make provision to enable the ratification by the UK of the EU Transitional Protocol concerning the composition of the European Parliament, in accordance with Section 5 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008.
	Other EU member states, such as Ireland, France and Denmark, already require referendums on changes to the EU treaties in certain circumstances. Our legislation will set out in detail the circumstances in which a referendum would be required, and how Ministers would inform Parliament and the public of their decision as to whether a referendum should be held and the clear reasons for their decision. These formal ministerial decisions would be subject to judicial review.
	The referendum requirement, or lock, would not catch all amendments or treaty changes. The lock would cover any proposed transfers of competence-the EU's ability to act in a given area-between the UK and the EU; and transfers of power, such as the giving up of UK national vetoes and moving to majority voting in significant areas, such as in common foreign and security policy. But treaty changes which do not transfer competence or power from the UK to the EU would not be subject to a referendum. For example, accession treaties that transfer competences and power from the acceding country to the EU, and which only amend treaty provisions to the extent necessary to facilitate the accession, do not transfer competence or power from the UK to the EU, and so consequently would not be subject to a referendum. The Transitional Protocol on the composition of the European Parliament, which would temporarily amend the number of MEPs, does not transfer any competence or power from the UK to the EU and so consequently would not be subject to a referendum.
	The coalition programme says that the Government will ensure that there will be no transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU during this Parliament; and so there will be no such referendum during this Parliament. A referendum would be required only if the Government supported a proposed change and if that change transferred power or competence from the UK to the EU, and would be held before the Government ratify such a change, or in the case of major ratchet clauses, agree formally to the use of the clause in the Council. As any EU treaty needs the unanimous agreement of all EU member states including the UK, where the Government oppose any proposed treaty change, a referendum would not be required.
	The coalition agreement contains a clear commitment that this Government will not join, or prepare to join, the euro in this Parliament; nor will this Government agree to the UK's participation in the establishment of any European public prosecutor. Furthermore, this Government will ensure that any future proposal to do either of these will require a referendum of the British people. In addition, any proposal which would mean the UK giving up its border controls, or any proposal to adopt a common EU defence policy, would also require a referendum of the British people before the Government could agree.
	The Government will propose in this legislation that an Act of Parliament is required before ratchet clauses are put into effect. This will give Parliament more power over the decisions being taken by the Government. Germany has a very similar policy already in place: to give the German Parliament more of a say over EU decision-making, Germany has identified some areas that require legislation or parliamentary approval either before or following adoption by the EU of these ratchet clauses.
	There is no one agreed definition of a ratchet clause; some provide for a modification of the EU treaties without recourse to formal treaty change, others are one-way options already in the treaties which EU member states can decide together to exercise and which allow existing EU competence or powers to expand. Examples include clauses which would add to what can be done within existing areas of EU competence, such as the ability to add to the existing rights of EU citizens; and clauses on the composition or procedures of EU institutions and bodies, such as a change to the number of European Commissioners. Where a ratchet clause would amount to the transfer of an area of competence or power from the UK to the EU, such as the clause which would allow certain decisions in Common Foreign and Security Policy to be taken by majority voting rather than by unanimity, we will also propose subjecting that ratchet clause to a referendum of the British people before the UK can agree to its use.
	This Bill would allow the UK to continue to play a strong and positive role in the EU (just as their arrangements allow other member states to do so) while increasing the accountability and democratic legitimacy of the EU. This Bill would ensure that the British people are able properly to have their say on any future transfers of competence or power from the UK to the European Union.

Extradition

Baroness Neville-Jones: My right honourable friend the Home Secretary (Theresa May) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today announcing to Parliament the Government's plans to review the UK's extradition arrangements.
	The Coalition's Programme for Government document published on 20 May, stated that "We will review the operation of the Extradition Act-and the US/UK extradition treaty-to make sure it is even-handed". This announcement sets out how we propose to do this.
	There are a number of areas of the UK's extradition arrangements which have attracted significant controversy in recent years. The Government understand that these are longstanding concerns and the review will therefore focus on five issues to ensure that the UK's extradition arrangements work both efficiently and in the interests of justice. These issues are:
	breadth of Secretary of State discretion in an extradition case; the operation of the European Arrest Warrant, including the way in which those of its safeguards which are optional have been transposed into UK law;
	whether the forum bar to extradition should be commenced;
	whether the US-UK extradition treaty is unbalanced;
	and whether requesting states should be required to provide prima facie evidence.
	The review will be conducted by a small panel of experts who we are now seeking to appoint.
	We expect the review to report by the end of the summer 2011.

Foreign Affairs Council

Baroness Wilcox: My honourable friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs (Edward Davey) has today made the following Statement.
	The Foreign Affairs Council will be held on 10 September in Brussels. I will be representing the UK.
	The agenda items are as follows:
	Economic Partnership Agreements
	Ministers will discuss next steps on the economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with African, Caribbean and Pacific states, including how to progress negotiations further, being as flexible as possible whilst retaining compatibility with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). They may also discuss the implementation of EPAs already signed and the impact of EPAs on regional integration.
	South Korea Free Trade Agreement
	The presidency will seek Ministers' approval and signature of this free trade agreement (FTA) on behalf of the European Council. Discussion is also likely to cover the progress of the associated bilateral safeguard regulation through ordinary legislative procedure in the European Parliament. They will also agree to provisional application of the FTA's commitments, the date to be confirmed later in the year following parallel work in the European Parliament.
	Investment
	Ministers will discuss the Commission's Communication on the future of the European Union's international investment policy. This discussion is likely to cover which countries will take priority as the EU seeks partners for new EU-investment agreements and what these agreements should cover. It is also likely that the regulation to manage the transfer of competency for international investment policy, which was published in parallel with the Communication, will also be raised.
	Any Other Business: Pakistan
	Following the catastrophic flooding which continues to cause considerable devastation in Pakistan, Ministers will discuss plans for the EU to agree a comprehensive package of support for Pakistan's recovery both in the short and longer term, including substantive measures on trade. The discussion is likely to cover both increased humanitarian assistance from member states and the Commission, as well as mechanisms to grant Pakistan increased market access to the EU, either through membership of the generalised system of preferences (+) (GSP+) scheme or through immediate, short-term reductions in EU tariffs on key Pakistani exports.
	Any Other Business: Malaysia FTA
	Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht will inform Ministers of recent discussions with Malaysia about the possible start of negotiations for a free trade agreement under the EU-ASEAN free trade agreement mandate.

Further Education

Baroness Wilcox: My honourable friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (John Hayes), has made the following Statement.
	On 24 May, the Government announced that £50 million of reprioritised train to gain funding would be invested in the further education infrastructure to support the development of new college facilities. On 21 June, I informed the House that though the Government could not undo the previous mismanagement of the FE capital programme, they fully recognised the importance of ensuring that the teaching and learning facilities in our further education colleges be modern and fit for purpose.
	That is why I made clear that the Government would support those colleges that had not previously benefited significantly from public investment and so the £50 million would be targeted at those further education colleges that had received less than £5 million in total grant support since 2001 from the Learning and Skills Council.
	I am pleased to inform Parliament that the Skills Funding Agency has today written to those colleges informing that they will each receive up to a £225,000 renewal grant. The chief executive has informed 21 of these colleges that in addition to receiving renewal grant they will also receive an additional enhanced renewal grant taking their total grant up to £1 million. This will help colleges modernise their facilities, giving them a much-needed boost at a time when education could not be more important. Finally, the Skills Funding Agency is working with a further five colleges to resolve affordability issues so that they too can receive capital investment.
	The Skills Funding Agency received 92 applications which were assessed in a robust and transparent process using three key criteria: the existing condition of the college estate and its facilities; proposed benefits to learners; and how the projects would contribute to the regeneration of their local communities.
	This Government are committed to open and transparent decision-making and accordingly the assessment exercise was scrutinised by representatives of the Association of Colleges, which was satisfied that the selection process had been conducted properly and run smoothly.
	All recipients of the enhanced renewal grant are expected to begin construction shortly with completion anticipated in September 2011 allowing learners to benefit from these new facilities in the 2011 academic year.
	In addition, I expect colleges to leverage additional private resources and I am pleased to inform the House that it is estimated that the £50 million allocated by the Government will produce a total investment in the further education estate of over £230 million. I am sure the House will agree that this investment will make a significant difference to learners across the country.
	Please visit the Skills Funding Agency website (link: http://skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk) for a full list of successful colleges.

Immigration and Nationality Services

Baroness Neville-Jones: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Immigration has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am announcing proposals to change the fees for immigration and nationality applications made to the UK Border Agency. The Government review these fees on a regular basis and makes appropriate changes as necessary.
	The Chancellor's Emergency Budget set out the state of the nation's finances and demonstrated the very difficult choices that must be made to reduce the budget deficit. As part of that, the Government have looked again at the contribution made towards the costs of running an immigration system by the users of that system, balanced against those costs met by the UK taxpayer and we believe proposals to increase fees at this time are in the best interests of the UK. Securing the border brings with it an unavoidable core of cost, especially as we seek to improve customer service for visa applicants-something which we believe is important in the efficient running of the UK economy.
	We set some fees above the administrative cost of providing the service. This allows us to generate revenue which is used to fund the UK immigration system and to set certain fees below cost recovery to support wider government objectives. The revenue generated will continue to strengthen our capability in underpinning technology and process improvement. For transparency, I have included details of the estimated unit cost for each route, so that it is clear the degree to which individual routes are set above or below cost.
	I will shortly lay two sets of Regulations in Parliament to effect fee increases and the table below sets out details of all the proposed increases. The table includes indicative unit costs for each application for 2010-11. The unit cost is the estimated average cost to UK Border Agency of processing each application. Although our unit costs are not fixed over the course of the financial year, we publish unit costs to enable you to see which fees we set over cost and by how much. Further details of all fees changes will be outlined in the Explanatory Memoranda accompanying the Regulations.
	Regulations to set fees at or below the cost of processing are subject to the negative parliamentary procedure and I propose these fees will increase from 1 October 2010. Where we charge a fee that is set above the processing cost, the Regulations are subject to the affirmative parliamentary process, and I aim for these fees to come into effect in November, subject to parliamentary timetabling.
	I believe our proposals continue to strike the right balance between maintaining secure and effective border controls, and ensuring that our fees structure does not inhibit the UK's ability to attract those migrants and visitors who most benefit the UK. In principle it is right that those who benefit most from the immigration system should bear a higher share of the contribution to the running of the system.
	Full details on how to apply for all of these services will be provided on our website, www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk.
	Fees to be implemented from 1 October 2010:
	
		
			 Non-PBS Visas 
			   Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Products Unit Cost Main applicant Main applicant 
			 Visit visa - short £140 £68 £70 
			 Certificate of Entitlement £245 £220 £245 
			 Transit Visa £94 £47 £47 
			 Vignette Transfer Fee £93 £75 £93 
			 Call Out/Out of Hours Fee 134/hr £130/Hr up to Max £939/day £130/Hr up to Max £939/day 
		
	
	
		
			 PBS Visas 
			   Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Products Unit Cost Main applicant Main applicant 
			 Tier 1 (Transition) £332 £256 £332 
			 Tier 1 (Transition) CESC £332 £235 £300 
			 Tier 1 Post Study £344 £315 £344 
			 Tier 4 £242 £199 £220 
			 Tier 5 £173 £128 £130 
			 Tier 5 CESC £173 £112 £120 
		
	
	
		
			 Nationality Applications - Migrants in UK 
			  Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Products Unit Cost Main applicant Dependant Main applicant Dependant 
			 Renunciation of Nationality £208 £208 N/A £208 N/A 
			 Nationality Right of Abode £150 £143 N/A £150 N/A 
			 Nationality Reissued Certificate £178 £76 N/A £80 N/A 
			 Nationality Reconsiderations £100 £100 N/A £100 N/A 
			 Status Letter (Nationality) £107 £76 N/A £80 N/A 
			 Non-Acquisition Letter (Nationality) £107 £76 N/A £80 N/A 
		
	
	
		
			 Non-PBS Routes - Migrants in UK 
			  Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Products Unit Cost Main applicant Dependant Main Applicant Dependant 
			 Transfer of Conditions Postal £381 £169 £16 £200 £50 
			 Travel Documents Adult (CoT) £246 £220 N/A £220 N/A 
			 Travel Documents Adult CTD £246 £77.50 N/A £77.50 N/A 
			 Travel Documents Child (CoT) £231 £138 N/A £138 N/A 
			 Travel Documents Child CTD £255 £49 N/A £49 N/A 
			 Replacement BRP £35 £30 N/A £30 N/A 
			 Call Out/Out of Hours Fee £134/hr £130/Hr up to Max £939/day N/A £130/Hr up to Max £939/day N/A 
			 Work Permit Technical Changes £116 £20 N/A £20 N/A 
		
	
	
		
			 PBS Routes - Migrants In UK 
			  Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Products Unit Cost Main applicant Dependant Main applicant Dependant 
			 Tier 4 - Postal £357 £357 £80 £357 £100 
			 Tier 5 - Postal £359 £128 £12 £130 £30 
			 Tier 5 - Postal CESC £380 £112 £11 £120 £30 
		
	
	
		
			 PBS Sponsorship Products 
			 Products Unit Cost Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Tier 2 Small Sponsor Licence £880 £300 £300 
			 Tier 4 Sponsor Licence £950 £400 £400 
			 Tier 5 Sponsor Licence £880 £400 £400 
			 Tiers 2 & 4 Small Sponsor £950 £400 £400 
			 Tiers 2 & 5 Small Sponsor £880 £400 £400 
			 Tiers 4 & 5 Sponsor Licence £950 £400 £400 
			 Tiers 2 & 4 & 5 Small Sponsor £950 £400 £400 
			 Tier 2 Medium /Large Sponsor Licence, where they already
			 hold Tier 4 &/or 5 Licence £950 £600 £600 
			 Tier 4 &/or 5 Sponsor Licence, where they already hold Tier 2
			 Small Sponsor Licence £950 £100 £100 
			 Tier 4 Highly Trusted Sponsor Licence £950 £400 £400 
			 Sponsor Action Plan £1,100 £600 £1,000 
			 Tier 5 COS £25 £10 £10 
			 Tier 4 CAS £25 £10 £10 
		
	
	CESC = Council of Europe Social Charter Nationals
	Fees to be implemented from November 2010
	
		
			 Non-PBS Visas 
			  Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Products Unit Cost Main applicant Main applicant 
			 Visit visa - long 2 year £140 £230 £245 
			 Visit visa - long 5 year £141 £420 £450 
			 Visit visa - long 10 year £155 £610 £650 
			 Settlement £249 £644 £750 
			 Settlement - Dependant Relative £272 £1,680 £1,680 
			 Other Visa £115 £230 £245 
		
	
	
		
			 PBS Visas 
			  Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Products Unit Cost Main applicant Main applicant 
			 Tier 1 (Gen, Investor, Ent) £332 £690 £750 
			 Tier 1 (Gen & Ent) CESC £332 £629 £700 
			 Tier 2 £197 £270 £350 
			 Tier 2 CESC £196 £250 £300 
		
	
	
		
			 Nationality Applications - Migrants In UK 
			  Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Products Unit Cost Main applicant Dependant Main applicant Dependant 
			 Naturalisation 6 (1) Single * £208 £735 N/A £780 N/A 
			 Naturalisation 6 (1) Joint * £231 £930 N/A £1010 N/A 
			 Naturalisation 6 (2) * £208 £735 N/A £780 N/A 
			 Nationality Registration Adult * £208 £550 N/A £580 N/A 
			 Nationality Registration Single Minor £208 £470 N/A £500 N/A 
			 Nationality Registration Multiple Minors £255 £567 £97 £600 £150 
		
	
	*£80 per person for the Citizenship Ceremony is included in these fees.
	
		
			 Non-PBS Routes - Migrants in UK 
			  Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Products Unit Cost Main applicant Dependant Main applicant Dependant 
			 ILR Postal £341 £840 £129 £900 £250 
			 ILR PEO £256 £1,095 £154 £1,250 £350 
			 ILR Postal CESC £341 £767 £121 £850 £250 
			 ILR PEO CESC £256 £992 £144 £1,100 £300 
			 ILR Dependant Relative Postal £341 £1,680 N/A £1,680 N/A 
			 ILR Dependant Relative PEO £256 £1,930 N/A £2,050 N/A 
			 LTR Non Student Postal Main £419 £475 £92 £500 £150 
			 LTR Non Student PEO Main £348 £730 £118 £800 £200 
			 FLR (IED) (Postal £210 £400 £85 £500 £150 
			 FLR IED PEO £210 £650 £110 £800 
			 FLR (BUS) (Postal) £210 £800 £125 £850 £250 
			 Transfer of Conditions PEO £341 £578 £57 £600 £150 
			 Mobile Case working (Premium+) £1,982 £15,000 N/A £15,000 N/A 
			 Employment LTR outside PBS Postal £419 £475 £92 £500 £150 
			 Employment LTR outside PBS PEO £348 £730 £118 £800 £200 
		
	
	
		
			 PBS Routes - Migrants in UK 
			  Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Products Unit Cost Main applicant Dependant Main applicant Dependant 
			 Tier 1 General, Investor & Ent - Postal £317 £840 £129 £850 £250 
			 Tier 1 General, Investor & Ent PEO £288 £1,095 £154 £1,150 £300 
			 Tier 1 General/Ent - Postal CESC £317 £767 £121 £770 £250 
			 Tier 1 General/Ent PEO CESC £288 £992 £144 £1,000 £300 
			 Tier 1 (Post Study) - Postal £317 £550 £100 £550 £150 
			 Tier 1 (Post Study) - PEO £325 £800 £125 £850 £250 
			 Tier 1 Transition Postal £259 £408 £85 £500 £150 
			 Tier 1 Transition PEO £275 £663 £111 £700 £200 
			 Tier 2 - Postal £344 £475 £92 £500 £150 
			 Tier 2 - PEO £330 £730 £118 £800 £200 
			 Tier 2 - Postal CESC £344 £434 £88 £450 £150 
			 Tier 2 - PEO CESC £330 £669 £111 £700 £200 
			 Tier 4 - PEO £374 £628 £107 £650 £150 
			 Tier 5 - PEO £369 £578 £57 £600 £150 
			 Tier 5- PEO CESC £380 £521 £52 £550 £150 
		
	
	
		
			 PBS Sponsorship Products 
			 Products Unit Cost Current Fees New Proposal 
			 Tier 2 Medium /Large Sponsor Licence £880 £1,000 £1,000 
			 Tiers 2 & 5 Medium /Large Sponsor £880 £1,000 £1,000 
			 Tiers 2 & 5 Medium /Large Sponsor £880 £1,000 £1,000 
			 Tiers 2 &4 & 5 Medium /Large Sponsor £950 £1,000 £1,000 
			 Tier 2 COS £25 £170 £170 
		
	
	CESC = Council of Europe Social Charter Nationals

Isle of Man: Reciprocal Health Agreement

Earl Howe: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Anne Milton) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Following discussions between the department, the Isle of Man Government and the devolved Administrations, a new reciprocal health agreement between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man will come into effect from 1 October 2010.
	The new agreement will put the current temporary arrangements on a permanent footing, meaning that UK residents visiting the Isle of Man will receive free, state-provided healthcare, as will Isle of Man residents visiting the UK.
	Under the agreement, no public funds will change hands and this brings the Isle of Man into line with other agreements that the UK has with a number of non-European Economic Area countries.
	The new agreement represents a sensible and logical conclusion and provides certainty for travellers on temporary visits between the UK and the Isle of Man.

NHS: IT

Earl Howe: My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The national programme for IT is being reconfigured to reflect the changes described in the White Paper Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS and the outcome of the cross-government review of ICT projects initiated in May.
	A departmental review of the national programme for IT has concluded that we deliver best value for taxpayers by retaining a national infrastructure and applications whilst devolving leadership of IT development to NHS organisations on the principle of connected systems and interoperability with a plural system of suppliers.
	The programme has delivered a national infrastructure for the NHS, and a number of successful national applications such as choose and book, the picture archiving and communications (digital imaging) system, and the electronic prescription service should now be integrated with the running of current health services.
	The remaining work of the programme largely involves local systems and services, and the Government believe these should now be driven by local NHS organisations. Localised decision-making and responsibility will create fresh ways of ensuring that clinicians and patients are involved in planning and delivering front-line care and driving change. This reflects the coalition Government's commitment to ending top-down government.
	The new approach to implementation will be modular, allowing NHS organisations to introduce smaller, more manageable change, in line with their business requirements and capacity. NHS services will be the customers of a more plural IT supplier base, embodying the core assumption of connecting all systems together rather than replacing all systems.
	This approach will also address the delays, particularly in the acute sector, that resulted from the national programme's previous focus on complete system replacement. It will allow NHS trusts to retain existing systems that meet modern standards, and move forward in a way that best fits their own circumstances.
	An appropriate structure for health informatics is a key element of the organisational design work currently underway following the publication of Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. The direction of travel being announced today for IT services very much reflects the key theme of the White Paper, of bringing decisions closer to the front line. It follows that the National Programme will no longer be run as a centralised programme. Some elements will need to continue to be nationally managed and it is expected that new structures will be fully in place by April 2012.
	Existing contracts will be honoured and it is vital that their value be maximised. However, by moving IT systems closer to the frontline, it is expected to make additional savings of £700 million, on top of the £600 million announced by the previous Administration in December 2009. These savings will mean that the total cost of the programme will be reduced significantly from the original forecast of £12.7 billion for combined central and local spending to £11.4 billion.
	A separate review of the summary care record is currently under way, incorporating two elements: what content the summary electronic record should hold and make available for sharing across the health system; and whether the processes by which patients are able to withhold their consent are as clear and simple as possible. This review is expected to report by the end of September.

Schools: Single Level Tests

Lord Hill of Oareford: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Schools (Nick Gibb) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Schools involved in piloting single level tests will today be informed of Ministers' decision to end the pilot on completion of the June 2010 test round. The pilot has now provided sufficient evidence on single level tests to be considered as we review how key stage 2 tests operate in the future.

Sewerage: River Thames

Lord Henley: My honourable friend the Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries (Richard Benyon) has today made the following Statement.
	In the 19th century Sir Joseph Bazalgette built a sewerage network for London with the capacity that he believed would meet all foreseeable needs. It has been updated and modernised but for some years has been coming under increased strain to the point that combined sewer overflows discharge raw sewage into the River Thames on around 50 occasions a year.
	This figure is expected to increase. Recent Thames Water work has shown that the system is operating closer to its maximum capacity than previously recognised and, with population growth, increasing urbanisation and climate change, it is estimated that in 10 to 20 years' time sewage will be overflowing into the Thames even when there is little rain.
	Complete eradication of some spills of sewage into the Thames during periods of heavy rainfall is not feasible: this is the legacy of a sewerage system which carries both foul water and rainwater. But the frequency and volume of spills we face in future is unacceptable and should be reduced to ensure that environmental standards in the Thames continue to meet the standards set by the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994.
	Since the 22 March 2007 Statement by the then Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, Ian Pearson, on the need to improve the water quality in the Thames by upgrading the sewerage infrastructure, Thames Water has started work on building a tunnel (known as the Lee tunnel) from Abbey Mills pumping station to an upgraded Beckton sewage treatment works at a total cost of around £0.8 billion. When complete these works should reduce the total volume of sewage overflows into the tidal Thames by around two-thirds. However, significant volumes of raw sewage will still continue to enter the Thames at times of heavy rainfall particularly in the higher reaches of the tidal Thames from Hammersmith through central London which will get less benefit from the Lee Tunnel.
	Ian Pearson's Statement supported the construction of a second "Thames tunnel" to address unsatisfactory overflows from Hammersmith to Beckton. Since 2007, Thames Water, the Environment Agency, and Ofwat have worked together to improve the evidence base, to take forward the design process including costings, and explore possible commercial arrangements. The then Government announced their intention to go forward with the scheme. Despite that, the European Commission has continued to pursue infractions proceedings against us claiming we are failing to meet our obligations under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in the London area, and in Whitburn in the north-east of England.
	In 2007, the then Government judged the cost of the scheme to be at least £2 billion, with a peak annual increase in bills for Thames Water customers of £37. Since then greater analysis and study by Thames Water have led to a revised estimate of £3.6 billion, including contingency costs but excluding the Lee Tunnel and other elements of the scheme which have already been contracted for. This could result in future peak annual bill increases of around £60-65 (£80-90 including the Lee Tunnel and other elements).
	I recognise that in the current economic context this represents a significant cost to Thames Water customers and, while we judge this to be a robust cost estimate for this stage of the process we cannot rule out further changes to the estimates as work progresses. However a Thames tunnel continues to offer (by far) the lowest cost solution to the problem and I believe Thames Water should continue to press forward with this project working with Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Defra on the regulatory, commercial and planning processes. Thames Water intends to consult on options for the route of the tunnel shortly. We with Ofwat will continue to ensure that the costs are scrutinised and reviewed so that I can be assured before Thames Water sign a construction contract that the final proposal represents proper value for money. As we go through this process I intend to update the 2007 impact assessment for the tunnel and place it on the Defra website.
	I am also minded that development consent for the project should be dealt with under the regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects established by the Planning Act 2008. I consider that this project, with its unique scale and complexity, is of national significance, and therefore appropriate for this regime.
	I will be considering the appropriate mechanism under the 2008 Act to ensure the Thames Tunnel project is considered under this national level regime and intend to include consideration of the Thames Tunnel in the draft national policy statement for waste water. I plan to lay this before both Houses of Parliament later this autumn.

UK Border Agency

Baroness Neville-Jones: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Immigration (Damian Green) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Home Secretary announced the cancellation of ID cards and a halt to work on second biometric passports on 27 May 2010. UKBA has now renegotiated one of the key contracts that supported this work, saving £50 million. Using the restructured contract UKBA will build the immigration and asylum biometric system (IABS). This system will strengthen our ability to control the entry of foreign nationals into the United Kingdom and identify those who pose a risk to our country. Those who have previously been deported, or committed a criminal offence, or been turned down for a visa will find it much harder to enter the UK.
	Following the Home Secretary's announcement, Government reviewed the future use of all contracts let in connection with ID cards and second biometric passports. One of the relevant contracts is for the provision of a database of fingerprints and facial images. This contract, titled the national identity assurance service (NIAS) also supports key UKBA initiatives for the control of immigration and asylum. UKBA has been able to save £50 million from the contract price by removing components that stored data on UK nationals, and which are no longer needed.
	Using the revised contract UKBA will completely modernise our ability to use biometrics to protect our borders. The new system is scheduled for delivery by IBM at the end of 2011 and will support the checking of biometric visas, registration cards for asylum seekers and biometric residence permits. It will replace an existing system that was first commissioned in 2000 and is now nearing its design capacity. The new system is faster, more accurate and more resilient. It can also be expanded to cater for future immigration applications, for example streamlined border entry processes. The revised contract is worth £191 million over seven years.

Vocational Education

Lord Hill of Oareford: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove) has made the following Statement.
	For many years our education system has failed to value practical education, choosing to give far greater emphasis to purely academic achievements. This has left a gap in the country's skills base and, as a result, a shortage of appropriately trained and educated young people to fulfil the needs of our employers. To help support our economic recovery, we need to ensure that this position does not continue and in future we are able to meet the needs of our labour market. I am today announcing an independent review of vocational education which will be chaired by Professor Alison Wolf.
	To enable us to achieve this long term aim, the Government are currently developing a new approach to qualifications, considering all routes which are available to young people, to ensure that the qualifications that they study for are rigorous, relevant and bear comparison with the best in the world. As part of this I have asked Professor Wolf to consider how we can improve vocational education for 14 to 19 year olds to support participation and progression-specifically: how vocational education for 14 to 19 year-olds can be improved; what the appropriate target audience for vocational education is; what principles should underpin the content, structure and teaching methods of the vocational education offer; and how progression from vocational education to positive destinations can be improved. The review will not be considering the detailed content of specific qualifications, but will be focussing on the effectiveness of the overall structure of the vocational offer.
	I have asked Professor Wolf to report to me by spring 2011, and to make practical recommendations which will ensure real change and have regard to current financial constraints.
	I have today placed a copy of the letter I have sent to Professor Wolf in the library of the House.

Alcohol Policy

Baroness Neville-Jones: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Prevention (James Brokenshire) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I regret to inform that House that there was an inaccuracy in an Answer given by the honourable Member Alan Campbell, in answer to Parliamentary Question 313016 on 3 March 2010 (col. 1264W).
	The response (in Mr Alan Campbell's name) indicated that eight fines had been issued in 2008 for the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children (Section 147A of the Licensing Act 2003) with an average fine of £968.75.
	I can confirm that in fact, in 2008, four fines were issued for this offence, and the average fine amount was £1,713.

Armed Forces: Afghanistan

Lord Astor of Hever: My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Secretary of State for Defence has endorsed the deployment of elements of NATO's Headquarters Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (HQ ARRC) to Afghanistan from January 2011 to January 2012.
	HQ ARRC is one of NATO's nine Graduated Readiness Forces (Land) (GRF(L)) standing headquarters which provide augmentation, on a rotational basis, to the ISAF Joint Command in Kabul. HQ ARRC's personnel will take on the augmentation role from elements of the French-led GRF(L) which are currently deployed and will be replaced in turn by staff from the Eurocorps GRF(L) and the Spanish GRF(L).
	HQ ARRC is a UK-led multinational headquarters staffed by personnel from 15 Allied nations. In the order of 250 headquarters' staff will deploy at any one time, of which up to 189 will be UK. As a NATO deployment of NATO-assigned personnel, the UK contribution will not be considered as part of the UK's established and enduring force level, which remains at 9,500.
	The deployment of elements of HQ ARRC will ensure the operational effectiveness of the ISAF Joint Command throughout 2011 and demonstrates the UK's continued commitment both to NATO and to the international mission in Afghanistan.

Armed Forces: Compensation Scheme

Lord Astor of Hever: My honourable friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans (Andrew Robathan) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	As a result of Lord Boyce's review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, published in February 2010, an independent medical expert group was established. Professor Sir Anthony Newman Taylor CBE FMedSci has led this group, which comprises senior licensed consultants drawn from relevant specialties, representatives of ex-service organisations and serving members of the Armed Forces.
	The group's role is to advise on the appropriate levels of compensation for a number of specific injuries, illnesses and diseases highlighted in the AFCS review as being areas requiring further detailed work. The group is providing advice on a range of complex issues, including:
	Genital injury
	Paired injuries
	Hearing loss and acoustic trauma
	Non-freezing cold injury
	Mental health
	Brain injury
	Spinal cord injury
	There are several important topics that the group has begun that require more detailed analysis, including on mental health issues. As a result of this, I am going to extend the group in its current form to March 2012. I will review the group's status in 12 months' time. Therefore I am renaming the group the Independent Medical Expert Group.

Armed Forces: Detainee Handling Review

Lord Astor of Hever: My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Army Inspector, who reports directly to the Chief of the General Staff, was commissioned in early 2010 to conduct a review of the implementation of policy, training and conduct of detainee handling.
	All three services and the Permanent Joint Headquarters are involved in detainee handling in the land environment, and the review has consulted widely. It has taken evidence from soldiers and commanders in Afghanistan as well as staff involved in policy, doctrine, legal advice, training and the planning and conduct of operations. The review team also included an independent member, Mark Lewindon, a retired senior civilian police officer with long experience of police detention practices and other relevant fields.
	The Chief of the General Staff reported the outcome of the review to Ministers during the Summer Recess. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. The key findings can be summarised as follows:
	a. The review has found no evidence to suggest that pre-deployment and in-theatre training are failing to prepare forces to carry out detainee handling in accordance with applicable law and policy. The systems in place for current operations are essentially sound.
	b. On operations in Afghanistan, commanders are clearly focused on this issue; governance mechanisms are in place to monitor and assure detainee handling processes, with any allegations of improper behaviour by UK forces (including complaints by the detainees themselves) being formally investigated.
	c. Nevertheless, there are areas in which there is room for improvement. The review makes 31 tactical-level recommendations that should be seen as improvements to a system that is now working, rather than as mending a broken system. It also notes that a number of actions are already under way.
	d. The review also recognises that further work is under way on more strategic issues:
	(i) The importance of a higher governance structure in the Ministry of Defence that holds to account those individuals responsible for delivering the various aspects of the detainee-handling capability.
	(ii) The importance of embedding into every soldier, from his or her earliest training, an understanding of the principles and importance of detainee handling, so that it is seen as a mainstream military skill rather than a matter for specialists.
	(iii) That there may be benefit in greater transparency and impartial assurance open to public scrutiny, over and above the role played by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
	The Defence Board and Ministers have accepted the conclusions and recommendations of the review. Some of them have resource implications which will not be easy to absorb in the current financial climate, and which will have to be considered against competing priorities; we intend to press ahead with implementation of those recommendations without significant resource implications as quickly as we can.
	The review has been disclosed to the Baha Mousa public inquiry, as part of the department's evidence for the final stages of the inquiry.

Armed Forces: Ex-Service Personnel in Prison

Lord Astor of Hever: My honourable friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans (Andrew Robathan MP) and my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry for Justice, the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt MP), wish to make the following joint statement.
	On 6 January 2010, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice (under the previous Administration) announced in a Written Ministerial Statement (Official Report, col. 7WS) the findings of an initial study by the Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA) which estimated that 3 per cent of the prison population in England and Wales are ex-Regular service personnel. DASA has since revised its estimate to 3.5 per cent to take into account the incompleteness of its service-leavers database which did not include reliable data for those who had left the services prior to 1979 (Navy), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF).
	DASA has also determined the demographic and service variables of veterans in prison. They are predominantly male (99.6 per cent), British nationals (96.7 per cent), ex-Army (77 per cent) other rank (92 per cent), with 50 per cent being aged 45 and over. Only 1 per cent are recorded as officers and 7 per cent had no rank status attached to their records. DASA calculated that for veterans in prison the time between discharge from the Armed Forces and the start of their current sentence ranged from 0 to 41 years. 41 per cent began their current sentence 10 years after leaving the services, with only 6 per cent having started their current sentence within a year of being discharged. However, DASA estimates that for males aged 18-54, the proportion of the ex-regular service personnel in prison was 30 per cent less than the proportion of the general population in the same age group.
	The DASA follow-on report on the demographic and service variables of veterans in prison is being placed in the Library of the House and published in full on its website:
	www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub=VETERANS_IN_PRISON
	DASA's report provides a detailed statistical analysis of the demographic variables of veterans in prison. It does not explore why veterans come into contact with the criminal justice system. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence will consider what further work might usefully be commissioned to understand the reasons behind this.

Armed Forces: Grob Tutor Service Inquiry

Lord Astor of Hever: My honourable friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans (Andrew Robathan) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I wish to inform the House today of the findings of the Royal Air Force Service inquiry into the loss of Grob Tutor, G-BYXR, on 14 June 2009 in Oxfordshire. Tragically, the Volunteer Reserve Pilot, Flight Lieutenant Mike Blee, and Combined Cadet Force (CCF) Cadet, Nicholas Rice, were killed. Our deepest sympathies remain with their families and friends.
	The purpose of a service inquiry is to establish the circumstances of the loss and to learn lessons from it; it does not seek to apportion blame. The service inquiry was convened on 15 June 2009 and has now presented its findings. The service inquiry found that on the afternoon of the 14 June 2009, Grob Tutor G-BYXR departed from RAF Benson to conduct an air experience flight for the CCF Cadet. The aircraft was involved in a mid-air collision with a civilian standard Cirrus glider. The civilian glider pilot parachuted to safety with only minor injuries.
	The service inquiry was able to identify the sequence of airborne events and concluded that the cause of the accident was the controlled flight of Grob Tutor G-BYXR into the glider. Five contributory factors were identified including the medical condition of the pilot and supervision arrangements. The RAF has apologised privately to the bereaved families for the shortcomings in its supervisory processes and I wish to restate that apology today.
	The service inquiry panel made a total of 18 recommendations primarily relating to procedures, equipment and training. Twelve of these recommendations have already been implemented and the remaining six recommendations are under active consideration.
	A redacted version of the inquiry findings will be placed in the Library of the House today. It will also be made available on the MOD internet site and can be found by following the link below:
	http://www.mod.uk/DefenceIntemet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/BoardsOfInquiry/service inquiryinvestigatingtheaccidenttotutorgbyxr.htm

Armed Forces: Mull of Kintyre Accident

Lord Astor of Hever: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 26 May this year, during the debate on the Queen's Speech, I confirmed that we would be honouring the pledge we made in opposition to hold an independent review of the evidence relating to the tragic accident on 2 June 1994 when a Chinook helicopter crashed at the Mull of Kintyre, killing all 29 people on board.
	I am pleased to announce that the right honourable Lord Philip has agreed to conduct the review. Lord Philip, who retired in 2007 as a Lord of Session and member of the Inner House and is a privy counsellor, brings a wealth of judicial experience to the task. He will be assisted in his work by a panel of three privy counsellors, all distinguished parliamentarians: the right honourable Malcolm Bruce MP, the right honourable the Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and the right honourable the Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke.
	The terms of reference of the review will be: to examine all available evidence relating to the findings of the Board of Inquiry into the fatal accident at the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994; and to report conclusions to the Secretary of State for Defence as soon as possible.
	The review will be primarily an examination of the written record of the board of inquiry and of any other related evidence which it considers may throw light on the findings of the board. Lord Philip will, however, be happy to receive representations from individuals and groups with knowledge of the issues involved. Any person wishing to make contact with the review should write in the first instance to its secretary, Mr Alex Passa, at The Mull of Kintyre Review, 1 Melville Crescent, Edinburgh EH3 7HW.

Armed Forces: Ofsted Report on Welfare and Duty of Care in Initial Training

Lord Astor of Hever: My honourable friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans (Andrew Robathan) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Today Ofsted publishes its report on welfare and duty of care in Armed Forces initial training, copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House. Over the course of a year, Ofsted inspected 10 initial training establishments, meeting with recruits, trainees and staff to assess the effectiveness of the care and welfare arrangements.
	Training to join the front line in the Armed Forces is recognised as a challenge for recruits and trainees and the staff who look after them, which is why providing a safe and supportive environment is essential if the training is to be fully effective. I am pleased that Ofsted regards most recruits and trainees as well motivated, thoughtful and confident individuals who feel safe and well supported.
	Ofsted reports that where problems exist, they are not related to the quality of welfare and duty of care support, but to structure, management systems and staffing issues and it is these aspects of provision that are judged as being "inadequate" in two locations. These concerns are being addressed and followed up through the chain of command.
	The impact of operations on the training environment is noted by Ofsted in the report and this, combined with the current resource climate, means that we must strive to continue our efforts to improve ensuring that the impact of change is evaluated and the effect on recruits and trainees remains positive.

Armed Forces: Service Complaints Commissioner

Lord Astor of Hever: My honourable friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans (Andrew Robathan) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to place in the Library of the House the Ministry of Defence's formal response to the Service Complaints Commissioner's (SCC) second annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
	The MoD accepts the SCC's 10 new recommendations, three updated recommendations and two new objectives. The formal response sets out how the MoD proposes to address the recommendations and what we will be doing in the coming months.
	Progress made against the recommendations in the 2008 annual report has done much to improve awareness of the service complaints process and brought some important organisational change. We shall maintain and build on that progress in the coming year as we address the recommendations in the 2009 report, further improving on our current system and increasing confidence in it among our service personnel.

Armed Forces: Unsolicited Mail at Christmas

Lord Astor of Hever: My honourable friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans (Andrew Robathan) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I wish to inform the House about the unsolicited mail campaign Ministry of Defence (MoD) will be running in the lead-up to Christmas (which is 100 days from today).
	This Government are dedicated to the care and welfare of the men and women of our Armed Forces, particularly those on operations in Afghanistan. This is reflected in the first-class Deployed Welfare Package, which is constantly being improved to maximise the support we give to our Armed Forces on operations. A vital part of that package is ensuring the safe and timely delivery of personal mail from family and friends. To that end, we have a policy in place which encourages the generous British public to support our troops in ways other than by sending unsolicited goodwill parcels through the mail system.
	By way of background, during the build-up to Christmas 2007, the volume of unsolicited goodwill parcels overwhelmed the in-theatre postal and logistic capacity, resulting in a considerable delay to personal mail. BFPO estimates it will handle around 19,200 unsolicited parcels over Christmas this year (the eight-week period between mid-October and mid-December) as opposed to 6,400 over a "normal" eight-week period. In addition to the impact on personal mail, delivering unsolicited packages over the "final mile" to forward operating bases and patrol bases puts increased pressure on essential in-theatre resources. Additional helicopters and road convoys are required, both of which take essential transport assets away from their primary task and place our personnel at increased personal danger.
	It is for these reasons that the MoD will be encouraging the British public to show their support through one of the recognised MoD service charities rather then sending unsolicited goodwill parcels. All service personnel on operations over Christmas will receive a seasonal gift box from the MoD endorsed charity, "uk4u Thanks!". The charity works closely with the MoD, using free space in the existing supply chain to deliver the boxes over a period of time, so without impacting on the normal mail system. Other charities which help to support our troops include SSAFA, Afghan Heroes, Support our Soldiers and Operation Shoebox.
	This is not an easy issue and will seem counterintuitive to many, but I ask for your full support in directing the public towards MoD recognised charities rather than sending unsolicited mail as a means of expressing their much valued support to our deployed personnel.

Control Orders

Baroness Neville-Jones: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Theresa May) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period. The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
	The future of the control order regime
	As set out in the previous statement laid on 21 June 2010 the Government are reviewing control orders, as part of a wider review of counterterrorist and security powers and measures. This review is ongoing and we will report the outcome of the review to Parliament in the autumn.
	The exercise of the control order powers in the last quarter
	As explained in previous quarterly statements on control orders, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that the obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold Control Order Review Groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During this reporting period, two CORGs were held in relation to the orders currently in force. In addition, further meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.
	During the period 11 June 2010 to 10 September 2010, one non-derogating control order has been made, with the permission of the court, but has not been served. Two control orders have been renewed in accordance with Section 2(6) of the 2005 Act in this reporting period. Three control orders have been revoked during this reporting period. One control order was revoked because it was not possible to meet the disclosure test set out in the June 2009 House of Lords judgment (AF & Others) on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Two control orders were revoked as they were no longer considered necessary.
	In total, as of 10 September, there were nine control orders in force, all of which were in respect of British citizens. All of these control orders are non-derogating. Four individuals subject to a control order live in the Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals live in other police force areas.
	During this reporting period, one individual pleaded guilty to six counts of breaching his control order and was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
	During this reporting period, 56 modifications of control order obligations were made. Fourteen requests to modify control order obligations were refused.
	Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act provides a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. One appeal has been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period under Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act. A right of appeal is also provided by Section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against decisions by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order or to modify any obligation under their order. During this reporting period three appeals have been lodged with the High Court under Section 10(3) of the 2005 Act.
	EWHC 1860 (Admin) handed down on 26 July 2010, the court upheld the control order on the basis that there was and remained reasonable grounds for suspecting that AY was involved in terrorism-related activity, that it was and remained necessary for a control order to be imposed on him for purposes connected with protecting the public from a risk of terrorism and that each of the obligations in the control order was and remained necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting AY's involvement in terrorism-related activity. The court also considered and rejected the argument that an unsuccessful prosecution for a terrorism-related offence precludes the Secretary of State from making a control order on essentially the same material as that relied upon by the prosecution at trial.
	EWHC 2278 (QB) handed down on 10 September 2010, the court found that the relocation of CA to a different town was not proportionate because of his particular family circumstances.
	EWCA Civ 869, handed down on 28 July 2010, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal against the High Court's judgment of 18 January 2010 in relation to AE and AF and upheld AN's appeal against the High Court's judgment of 31 July 2009. The issue was what the appropriate remedy should be in control order cases where the Secretary of State elects not to make sufficient disclosure to comply with Article 6 of the ECHR. The Court of Appeal found that the appropriate remedy in these circumstances is for the control order to be quashed from the date it was made and not for it to be revoked with effect from a date after the control order was served on the individual, as the Secretary of State had sought to argue.
	Most full judgments are available at http://www.bailii.org/.

DfID: Programme in Bangladesh

Baroness Verma: My honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Andrew Mitchell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Today we are publishing by Command Paper the Government response to the former International Development Committee's report on DfID's programme in Bangladesh. The report was published on 4 March 2010.
	The report was positive about DfID's programme in Bangladesh. It commends DfID's work on governance, extreme poverty and the balance we are striking between support to service delivery and capacity-building. The Minister of State for International Development visited Bangladesh on 12-14 July 2010, reinforcing the UK's commitment to helping Bangladesh reduce poverty and deal with the impacts of climate change.

EU: Belgian Presidency Priorities

Lord Howell of Guildford: My honourable friend the Minister of State (David Lidington) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am keen to keep Members fully informed on the European Union. I would, therefore, like to draw Members' attention to a letter and note on the priorities of the Belgian Presidency of the European Union, which has been placed in the Library of the House.
	I have also deposited a copy of the Belgian Presidency Work Plan, and a calendar of forthcoming events from the Presidency.

EU: Court of Justice

Lord Howell of Guildford: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (William Hague) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	At a conference of representatives of Governments of member states on 29 September 2010, the appointment of a Lithuanian judge to the Court of Justice is to be considered. The nomination is in respect of Mr Egidijus Jarašiunas.
	Having consulted with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and Attorney General, the Foreign Secretary agrees to the appointment.

EU: Energy Council

Lord Marland: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Energy, Charles Hendry MP, has issued the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I represented the United Kingdom at the EU Informal Energy Council in Brussels on 6-7 September 2010.
	The Council began with a discussion of energy consumer policy, focusing on the issue of vulnerable consumers. There was broad agreement on the need for greater transparency of information and on the importance of technology, including the use of smart meters, to allow consumers to make better choices. This discussion will form the basis of a report benchmarking national policies for discussion at the December Energy Council.
	The Council continued with a debate on energy infrastructure, including the development of a low-carbon grid. Member states referred to issues of planning and the length of time needed to get certain permissions as particular obstacles to infrastructure development. The debate moved on to financing, with widespread agreement that the majority of the energy infrastructure investment which would be needed across Europe in coming years would need to come from the private sector but that there was a role for the EU in facilitating that investment and providing finance in exceptional circumstances. I noted the importance of regional projects, such as the North Sea offshore grid. The Commission confirmed that it intended to produce a communication on infrastructure in November, focusing on barriers to investment and key priorities for the next two decades.
	The Energy Commissioner then presented the Commission's initial position on the EU's response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. He emphasised the importance of minimising the risks of a similar incident in the EU by ensuring the highest standards of safety across Europe. He noted that the EU already had a framework of safety regulations in place and great experience of drilling, particularly in the North Sea.
	The Council ended with a working lunch where Ministers discussed energy efficiency.

EU: Foreign Affairs Council

Baroness Wilcox: My honourable friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs (Edward Davey), has today made the following statement.
	The Foreign Affairs Council was held on 10 September in Brussels. I represented the UK. The agenda items covered were as follows:
	Economic Partnership Agreements
	This was an opportunity for the Commission to discuss the disappointing progress made on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), with a number of options explored to help increase momentum. I reinforced the UK position that EPAs should be development-friendly and we should avoid any negative implications of the agreements wherever possible. The UK will work closely with the Commission in developing thinking and approach going forward.
	South Korea Free Trade Agreement
	The Presidency sought Ministers' approval and signature of this free trade agreement.
	Italy called for provisional application of the FTA to be delayed by at least 12 months, arguing that the current agreement was not balanced particularly in the automotive and textiles sectors, and a proper understanding should be reached with the European Parliament on the safeguard regulation before the FTA is implemented.
	I emphasised that the EU needed to defend its credibility and avoid any damaging read-across to other multilateral and bilateral negotiations. I also highlighted the benefits of the FTA to many Italian business sectors.
	No agreement was reached on 10 September. On 15 September, Korea stated it would accept Italy's request to delay provisional application of the FTA until 1 July 2011. The signature of the agreement is scheduled to take place on 6 October 2010.
	Investment
	The Commission outlined the approach in its communication on the future of the European Union's international investment policy, stressing the need to prioritise countries for new EU-investment agreements. Despite widespread criticism of the regulation, particularly on the need for certainty for businesses, several member states supported the overall approach to investment policy as set out in the communication.
	AOB: Pakistan
	Following the catastrophic flooding which continues to cause considerable devastation in Pakistan, we had the opportunity to discuss plans for a comprehensive package of measures to assist Pakistan's recovery, including substantive measures on trade. The UK has been at the forefront of negotiations pushing to improve Pakistan's market access to the EU with immediate effect. I personally spoke to my EU counterparts and the Commission in the margins of the meeting, and will continue to push strongly for the EU to play a leading role in Pakistan's recovery.

EU: Forthcoming legislation

Lord Howell of Guildford: My honourable friend the Minister of State (David Lidington) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	There has been a profound disconnection between the will of the British people and the decisions taken in their name by the British Government in respect of the European Union. This Government are determined to reconnect with the British people by making themselves more accountable for the decisions they take in relation to how the EU develops. We plan to decentralise the power from the Government to the British people, so the people can make the big decisions on the direction of the EU. This Government are committed to allowing the British people to have their say on any future proposals to transfer powers from Britain to Brussels.
	Her Majesty's Gracious speech set out that the Government will bring forward a Bill later in this Session that would ensure that in future this Parliament and the British people have their say on any proposed transfer of powers to the European Union. I want to update the House at this stage on the progress made so far in preparing this legislation.
	The Government will introduce a Bill which would require that:
	(a) any proposed future EU treaty, agreed by all EU member states' Governments, including the UK Government, which sought to transfer areas of power or competence from the United Kingdom to the European Union would be subject to a referendum of the British people; and,
	(b) the use of ratchet clauses or passerelles, provisions in the existing EU treaties, which allow the rules of the EU to be modified or expanded without the need for a formal treaty change, would require an Act of Parliament before the Government could agree to its use.
	In addition, I set out in my Statement to the House of 6 July that the forthcoming Bill would also make provision to enable the ratification by the UK of the EU transitional protocol concerning the composition of the European Parliament, in accordance with Section 5 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008.
	Other EU member states, such as Ireland, France and Denmark, already require referendums on changes to the EU treaties in certain circumstances. Our legislation will set out in detail the circumstances in which a referendum would be required, and how Ministers would inform Parliament and the public of their decision as to whether a referendum should be held and the clear reasons for their decision. These formal ministerial decisions would be subject to judicial review.
	The referendum requirement, or lock, would not catch all amendments or treaty changes. The lock would cover any proposed transfers of competence-the EU's ability to act in a given area-between the UK and the EU; and transfers of power, such as the giving up of UK national vetoes and moving to majority voting in significant areas, such as in common foreign and security policy. But treaty changes which do not transfer competence or power from the UK to the EU would not be subject to a referendum. For example, accession treaties that transfer competences and power from the acceding country to the EU, and which only amend treaty provisions to the extent necessary to facilitate the accession, do not transfer competence or power from the UK to the EU, and so consequently would not be subject to a referendum. The transitional protocol on the composition of the European Parliament, which would temporarily amend the number of MEPs, does not transfer any competence or power from the UK to the EU and so consequently would not be subject to a referendum.
	The coalition programme says that the Government will ensure that there will be no transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU during this Parliament; and so there will be no such referendum during this Parliament. A referendum would be required only if the Government supported a proposed change and if that change transferred power or competence from the UK to the EU, and would be held before the Government ratify such a change, or in the case of major ratchet clauses, agree formally to the use of the clause in the Council. As any EU treaty needs the unanimous agreement of all EU member states including the UK, where the Government oppose any proposed treaty change, a referendum would not be required.
	The coalition agreement contains a clear commitment that this Government will not join, or prepare to join, the euro in this Parliament; nor will this Government agree to the UK's participation in the establishment of any European public prosecutor. Furthermore, this Government will ensure that any future proposal to do either of these will require a referendum of the British people. In addition, any proposal which would mean the UK giving up its border controls, or any proposal to adopt a common EU defence policy, would also require a referendum of the British people before the Government could agree.
	The Government will propose in this legislation that an Act of Parliament is required before ratchet clauses are put into effect. This will give Parliament more power over the decisions being taken by the Government. Germany has a very similar policy already in place: to give the German Parliament more of a say over EU decision-making, Germany has identified some areas that require legislation or parliamentary approval either before or following adoption by the EU of these ratchet clauses.
	There is no one agreed definition of a ratchet clause; some provide for a modification of the EU treaties without recourse to formal treaty change, others are one-way options already in the treaties which EU member states can decide together to exercise and which allow existing EU competence or powers to expand. Examples include clauses which would add to what can be done within existing areas of EU competence, such as the ability to add to the existing rights of EU citizens; and clauses on the composition or procedures of EU institutions and bodies, such as a change to the number of European Commissioners. Where a ratchet clause would amount to the transfer of an area of competence or power from the UK to the EU, such as the clause which would allow certain decisions in common foreign and security policy to be taken by majority voting rather than by unanimity, we will also propose subjecting that ratchet clause to a referendum of the British people before the UK can agree to its use.
	This Bill would allow the UK to continue to play a strong and positive role in the EU (just as its arrangements allow other member states to do so) while increasing the accountability and democratic legitimacy of the EU. This Bill would ensure that the British people are able properly to have their say on any future transfers of competence or power from the UK to the European Union.

EU: Informal Meeting of Foreign Ministers

Lord Howell of Guildford: My honourable friend the Minister of State (David Lidington) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers "Gymnich" was held in Brussels on 10-11 September. The UK was represented by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary (William Hague). I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) held in Brussels on 13 September.
	The agenda items covered were as follows:
	Gymnich
	The meeting was chaired by the EU High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission Baroness Ashton. The Gymnich is an informal meeting and, as such, no conclusions were adopted.
	Pakistan
	Baroness Ashton stressed the need for the EU to look strategically and comprehensively at Pakistan, not only as a humanitarian disaster but also more broadly including institution-building, counterterrorism, regional stability and nuclear security. Pakistan had always said that trade was the key to its relationship with the EU. The Commissioner for Development (Piebalgs) said the Development Cooperation Instrument had provision for €225 million for Pakistan for 2011-13. The Commissioner for Trade (De Gucht) set out options for trade-related assistance.
	Foreign Ministers broadly shared Baroness Ashton's analysis and set out their initial views on De Gucht's trade options ahead of further discussions at the European Council (16 September).
	Strategic Partnerships
	Baroness Ashton set out her views on the EU's engagement with strategic powers, and in particular China. The Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs (Rehn) and the Commissioner for Climate Action (Hedegaard) set out priorities for the EU's engagement with China. The Foreign Secretary said the UK wanted the European Council to agree core principles for EU external action; emphasise the importance of trade in the EU's strategic partnerships; agree an approach to key emerging powers (particularly China and India in advance of summits later this year); and give direction to instruments of EU external action.
	EU enlargement
	Foreign Ministers from EU candidate countries-Macedonia, Turkey and Croatia (Iceland did not attend)-gave presentations on their respective membership bids and the development of stronger cooperation with the EU. The Commissioner for Enlargement (Fule) gave a broad assessment of progress being made by the candidates towards accession. In the following discussion there was consensus that EU diplomacy had been successful following the ruling on Kosovo's declaration of independence by the International Court of Justice.
	General Affairs Council (GAC)
	The full text of all conclusions adopted, including "A" points, can be found at:
	http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/116489.pdf
	The GAC was chaired by the Presidency, Belgian Foreign Minister Steven Vanackere. The President of the Council, Herman van Rompuy, joined the Council over lunch for a discussion on the agenda of the September and October European Councils.
	Preparation for the September European Council
	Ministers discussed the draft Conclusions for the European Council. I stressed the need for these to put trade at the centre of the EU's external relationships, with China and India being of particular importance. I also emphasised the UK's wish for the European Council to agree conclusions on Pakistan that included commitments on humanitarian aid, development funding and trade measures.
	There was also a discussion on strengthening economic governance. President van Rompuy will report to the European Council on 16 September on work completed by the task force set up at the request of the Council in March.
	Preparation for the October European Council
	Ministers were presented with a draft agenda for the European Council to be held on 28-29 October. The issues proposed are:
	Economic policy. The Council will receive a final report from van Rompuy's task force on economic governance.
	G-20. The Council aims to agree an EU position ahead of the summit in Seoul on 11-12 November.
	Climate Change. The Council aims to prepare for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun on 29 November - 10 December.
	EU-US. The Council aims to discuss the forthcoming EU-US Summit on 20 November.
	EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
	The Presidency said that more time was needed for agreement between Members States on the draft EU-Korea FTA. The intention was to try to reach agreement in time for the September European Council.
	AOB
	Under AOB, the Commissioner for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration (Sefcovic) raised the Common Transparency Register and codes of conduct for the Commission when interacting with lobbyists.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2010

Lord Sassoon: My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (David Gauke) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Finance Bill will be published on Thursday 30 September.
	Explanatory Notes on the Bill will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office and placed in the Libraries of both Houses on that day. Copies of the Explanatory Notes will be available on the Treasury's website.

Hong Kong

Lord Howell of Guildford: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (William Hague) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement:
	The latest report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). The report covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2010. I commend the report to the House.

Investment Firms

Lord Sassoon: My honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mark Hoban) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Today the Government are publishing a consultation document on a special administration regime for investment firms. Copies of the document entitled Special Administration Regime for Investment Firms have been deposited in the Libraries of the House and will be available on the HM Treasury website at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consult_investment_banks2.htm.

Iraq: Local Staff

Lord Howell of Guildford: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (William Hague) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In his Statement of 23 March 2009, the former Foreign Secretary informed the House that the element of the ex-gratia Iraq Locally Employed Staff Assistance scheme which applied to former employees would close on 19 May 2009 and that employing departments and the Home Office would continue to review the scheme as applied to serving staff.
	Serving staff are those Iraqi staff employed on or after 8 August 2007. Former staff are those Iraqi staff whose employment terminated on or before 7 August 2007.
	Together with my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Home Affairs, Defence and International Development, I have now reviewed the operation of the scheme as it applies to serving staff.
	Eligible serving staff, as defined under the scheme, are entitled to apply for either a financial package or resettlement in the UK. Over 250 serving staff have chosen the financial package. To date, 117 principal applicants and 241 dependants have been resettled via the scheme for serving staff.
	With the drawdown of the UK defence presence in Iraq, the Ministry of Defence no longer employs any Iraqi staff and their numbers accounted for the largest proportion of applicants under the scheme. As a result of this, in view of the declining rate of applications and the stabilisation of the security situation in Iraq, we consider that the time is right to close the scheme to new applications from serving staff. From today, only applications from serving staff who will qualify for either financial or resettlement benefits under the scheme on 12:00 noon Arabian Standard Time on 16 October 2010 and, thus, will have attained 12 months' continuous service by this date, will continue to be accepted. Further, such applications will cease to be accepted from 12:00 noon Arabian Standard Time on 16 January 2011.
	Recently, there have been enquiries as to whether staff who received financial packages under the LESAS scheme are entitled to apply to switch to the resettlement option. We will permit those staff who accepted the financial package under either the scheme for former or serving staff to apply, in writing, for consideration for resettlement instead. The deadline for an application is 12:00 noon Arabian Standard Time on 16 November 2010. We will not consider applications: (a) received after that deadline; (b) from an individual who has previously been refused resettlement under either the schemes for former or serving employees; or (c) from an individual who has not repaid the financial package within eight weeks of applying for resettlement. A successful applicant will need to meet all the criteria for resettlement under the relevant scheme. Should an applicant be refused resettlement, they will be repaid the financial package. It should be noted that the now closed scheme for former employees had a cap of 600 places, with some places unfilled at the time of closure. So, applications to switch under that scheme will be subject to that cap.
	We shall work with our missions in Iraq to ensure that full publicity is given to the closure of this scheme in the local media.
	In conclusion, I must reinforce the enormous debt of gratitude we owe to our Iraqi staff for the dedication and commitment they have demonstrated across the board. We could not have made our contribution to the rebuilding of Iraq without their service and, in some cases, sacrifice. The scheme was designed to reflect this debt and I am pleased that it proved popular and effective.

NHS: Parking

Earl Howe: My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today publishing the Government's response to the recent public consultation on car parking at National Health Service hospitals issued by the previous Administration before the election.
	That consultation set out proposals to introduce mandatory free parking for many in-patients and out-patients. Those proposals would cost the NHS in excess of £100 million. The impact assessment states that it would lead to a net disbenefit to patients valued at almost £200 million. This negative impact arises from substantial health benefits foregone from not investing this income in healthcare, offset by lower financial benefits to favoured car park users. The impact also does not include environmental costs associated with the policy, which would also clearly be adverse. At a time when the NHS needs to make every penny of its budget count, the Government cannot support such a proposal.
	Moreover, the Government have embarked on a very clear strategy for the NHS that reduces central control and intervention in operational decisions, giving NHS managers the autonomy to make decisions that reflect the needs of their local community. Telling the NHS how to run their car parks would be inconsistent with this principle.
	However, our strategy also puts patients at the centre of decision-making and supports patients to be able to make informed choices. It is clear from the consultation feedback that the parking policies and practices in some trusts fall short of these standards. Patients undergoing extended out-patient treatment, and long-stay in-patients, should not be further disadvantaged, and nor should their health needs be possibly compromised by high cumulative parking costs. A fair scale of concessionary rates should be offered, and all eligible patients should be fully informed and helped to take advantage of them. These standards are fundamental to patient-centred care and informed choice.
	Through our announcement today we are:
	ensuring that the NHS is made aware of patients' concerns;
	asking trusts to work with local groups to examine their current policies and practices and ensure that they are genuinely fair;
	emphasising the importance of promoting these fully to eligible patients, prior to and during their treatment; and
	asking the NHS Confederation, which already provides best-practice guidance on parking policy, to engage further with parking providers and patient advocate groups to respond to the concerns identified through the consultation.
	Local autonomy requires local accountability. It is for trust boards to ensure that their policy is fair and patient-centred, and has the support of its local community. The challenge now is for the NHS collectively and locally, to take action to deliver the fair access that their patients expect.
	The Government's response and a summary of the responses to the consultation have been placed in the Library. Copies of the Government's response are also available to honourable Members in the Vote Office.

Northern Ireland: Independent Monitoring Commission

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Owen Paterson) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have received the Twenty-fourth Report of the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC). This report has been made under Articles 4 and 7 of the international agreement that established the Commission. It reports on the murder of Bobby Moffett in Belfast on 28 May 2010. I have considered the content of the report and I am today laying it before Parliament.
	The IMC concludes that:
	"The murder was committed by members of the UVF acting as such;
	These members had sanction at central leadership level. The fact that there was no subsequent condemnation of the killing by the leadership means that the UVF has in effect adopted the consequences of the murder;
	There were two main reasons for the murder and the way in which it was committed: to stop Mr Moffett's perceived flouting of UVF authority, and to send a message to the organisation and the community that this authority was not to be challenged;
	Senior leadership in the UVF could have prevented the murder had it determined to do so."
	In May 2007 the UVF issued a statement renouncing violence and committing to a process of transformation from a military to a civilian organisation. This was a major turning point for it. Last year it also took the step of decommissioning.
	The IMC observes that "the murder does not blind us to the progress the UVF has made hitherto or of itself mean that the process [of transformation] will be reversed. But it does call into question the reference in the May 2007 statement to becoming a civilian organisation and shows that when faced with what it saw as a challenge to its standing and authority, the organisation reverted to physical force". The IMC goes on to say that "If this murder is to mark the end of the use of physical force it will require a more profound change of culture and attitude by the leadership and the organisation."
	The murder of Mr Moffett was brutal and shocking. The conclusions of the IMC in respect of the behaviour of the UVF leadership are a challenge to the UVF leadership to renew its determination to deliver fully on its collective commitment to transform its organisation.

Northern Ireland: Security Review

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Owen Paterson) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	The Government have received and welcomed the second annual report of Lord Carlile of Berriew on the operation of arrangements for handling national security matters in Northern Ireland.
	The report finds the now established national security arrangements free from major structural problems, more efficient than analogous arrangements elsewhere, and in a more acceptable human rights context than anywhere comparable.
	Consistent with his terms of reference, the report was submitted to both the Home Secretary, Theresa May, and to me.
	The Home Secretary and I welcome the content of this report which I am today bringing before Parliament. I have placed copies in the House Library.

Olympic Games 2012: Wanstead Flats

Baroness Neville-Jones: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Home Office is today launching a public consultation on a proposed legislative reform order, made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, to make a temporary amendment to the Epping Forest Act 1878. I am placing copies of the consultation paper in the Library of the House.
	The proposed legislative reform order would allow a one-time, temporary and limited enclosure of land on Wanstead Flats, in Epping Forest. This will be for the specific, time-limited purpose of housing a temporary Muster, Briefing and Deployment Centre during the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics to support the policing operation. Centres of this kind are a tried-and-tested feature of large-scale police operations and will be essential in helping to deliver a safe, and secure Games. No other suitable sites have been identified in this part of London.
	The Government are clear that these proposals are dependent on the Epping Forest Act 1878 reverting to its full protection at the end of the proposed 120-day period. No lasting powers relating to Wanstead Flats or Epping Forest would be conferred on the police or any other bodies as a result of this order. This will ensure that members of the public can continue to enjoy the full benefits of this open space in perpetuity. The MPS will pay the City of London Corporation £170,000 in lieu of rent and this money will be used to ensure that users of Wanstead Flats receive lasting benefits.

Private Military and Security Companies

Lord Howell of Guildford: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (William Hague) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	1. The Government have reviewed options to regulate the private military and security company industry, with the aim of promoting high standards in the private military and security company industry internationally, and reducing the risk that the activities of private military and security companies might give rise to human rights or humanitarian law concerns or have a negative impact on international security and stability or the UK's foreign policy goals.
	2. Taking into account previous consultations, including the public consultation conducted by the previous Government, the Government have decided to:
	a. Introduce robust regulation in the UK through a trade association based on a voluntary code of conduct agreed with and monitored by the Government;
	b. Use their leverage as a key buyer of private military and security company services to promote compliance with the code; and,
	c. Seek an international agreement on standards consistent with the UK code covering all aspects of private military and security company organisation and operation worldwide.
	3. The Government will now:
	a. Assess and decide the most suitable trade association to monitor and audit compliance of a UK code of conduct;
	b. Agree an international code of conduct (an initiative led by the Swiss Government) for the private military and security company industry, and guiding principles for an accountability mechanism to support their implementation by the end of the year; and,
	c. Incorporate agreed standards into all HM Government contracts with private military and security companies.
	4. Our work will focus on ensuring that the code is effectively monitored and the industry is held accountable for its activities. The Government will review this policy two years from its implementation. If they have not met their objective of raising standards of the industry, the Government will consider again alternative options.
	In my speech, "Britain's Values in a Networked World", on 15 September, I stressed the importance of businesses upholding high standards when operating overseas. This approach supports that objective. It will also serve to strengthen international frameworks that contribute to human rights and international security.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Lord Sassoon: My honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mark Hoban, has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill has today been introduced into the House of Commons.
	This Bill would end eligibility for child trust funds and abolish the health in pregnancy grant from January 2011, and repeal the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009.
	The Government announced on 24 May that it would reduce and then stop government payments to child trust funds. The Child Trust Funds (Amendment No. 3) Regulations, made on 22 July, have already reduced government payments. The Government also announced at the Budget on 22 June that the health in pregnancy grant would be abolished, and that the introduction of the saving gateway would be cancelled.
	All of these measures will contribute to the reduction of the UK's budget deficit. The changes being made to child trust funds, including through this Bill; the abolition of the health in pregnancy grant; and the cancellation of the saving gateway's introduction are expected to save £370m in 2010-11, and around £800m in future years.
	The Government have also published today an initial assessment of the equality impacts of the measures included in the Bill, and an initial estimate of the impacts of the changes being made to child trust funds upon account providers. Copies of these documents have been deposited in the Libraries of the House and are available from the Vote Office.

Speech on Britain's Values in a Networked World

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (William Hague) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I wish to make the House aware that I will deliver a speech entitled "Britain's Values in a Networked World" at The Old Hall and Crypt, Lincoln's Inn today. This is the third in a series of four major policy speeches which set out the Government's active and activist approach to foreign policy.
	In this speech I will address how this Government will pursue a foreign policy that remains true to our values while promoting Britain's security and prosperity. As part of this approach, I will be making three specific announcements.
	First, I am determined to strengthen the FCO's institutional capability on human rights both at home and overseas, building on the work of previous Governments. Following the publication of the consolidated guidance to intelligence officers and service personnel, the FCO will be reissuing its guidance to its own staff on the need to report any alleged incidents of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that they encounter in the course of their work. I will make this guidance public.
	Secondly, I have decided to convene an advisory group on human rights to include key NGOs, independent experts and others. It will meet regularly and have direct access to Ministers. This group will ensure that we will benefit from outside advice on the conduct of our policy.
	Thirdly, as I explained to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 8 September, the FCO will strengthen its human rights reporting and make it available to a wider audience. Going forward, we will report to Parliament and the public, both through a Command Paper and by making best use of the internet.
	A copy of my speech will be placed in the Library of the House and published on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk) by 16 September.

Strategic National Transport Corridors

Earl Attlee: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I am publishing today, 16 September, a consultation paper on proposals to amend the criteria defining Strategic National Corridors (SNCs). This will result in the identification of roads, including the A1 between Newcastle and the Scottish border as being of national significance.
	The Strategic National Corridors were established in 2009 to define the network over which the largest proportion of strategic traffic-that is, traffic travelling between the 10 largest urban areas, 10 busiest ports and seven busiest airports in England-moves around the country. The original definition also provided for connectivity between the four nations of the United Kingdom, but there was no specific provision for connecting capital cities.
	The Government believe that the routes linking Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to the nearest urban strategic destination should be recognised for the strategic connectivity that they provide. For this reason I am today launching a consultation on proposals to change the definition, to explicitly include links with our capital cities.
	As a result of this change we believe that two routes would be identified as having national significance: namely the A1 between its junction with the A19 north of Newcastle and the Scottish border, providing a defined link to Edinburgh; and a route between Bootle and the Twelve Quays Ferry Terminal in Birkenhead, providing connectivity with Belfast. We have also set out information about alternatives to these routes that I invite consultees to consider. Routes linking the network with Cardiff were identified in 2009.
	The consultation does not include any specific proposals to increase the capacity of these routes. However, the department is considering the nature of the problems on the A1 north of Newcastle so that, as part of the spending review, Ministers will be in a position to consider these alongside other priorities in identifying those schemes and programmes that it will be proceeding with, consistent with resources available and the Government's objectives.
	I am pleased to announce that the consultation will run for a period of 12 weeks, and invite everybody with an interest in the roads potentially affected to take part. A consultation document and instructions for responding can be found on the department's website and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles

Earl Attlee: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have today published guidance notes about the sections of the Equality Act 2010 relating to taxis and private hire vehicles which are coming into force.
	The Equality Act 2010 contains new provisions which will, when commenced, tighten the law by placing duties on taxi and PHV drivers to provide assistance to people in wheelchairs. Before these duties come into force, we are making provision for those drivers who themselves suffer from a condition which makes it difficult to provide assistance to apply for an exemption from these duties. Drivers will be able to apply for these exemptions from October. I have today published guidance to local authorities and drivers to this effect so that they can prepare accordingly.
	Also from October, the sections of the Equality Act 2010 which oblige taxi and PHV drivers and PHV operators to carry guide dogs will be commenced. This obligation is already prescribed in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so in practice there will be no change for drivers. However, the guidance I have published today will reassure drivers and licensing authorities that any existing exemption notices which refer to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will still be valid once the Equality Act sections are commenced.
	The guidance notes have been published on the department's website and will be brought to the attention of all the taxi/licensing authorities and the principal taxi/PHV organisations. Copies of the guidance notes have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.